Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brendan.mattson/Archive

06 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

A mass of WP:MPs self describe themselves as “A number of concerned professionals have been attempting to remove some offensive material from the Traditional Chinese Medicine page.”[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesBWatson#Traditional_Chinese_Medicine_page] Their objection is the dress style of women professionals in new age California alt med clinics. By User:Mubong here and here. By User: Sschram deleting eating “raw” flying squirrel feces here. By User: Meirish here. By User: 71.34.98.149 here. By User: Huangqi01 here. By User: Petalumana here, here. By User: Brendan.mattson here, here, here, and here, and AFTER a 3RR warning here, and here. By User: 76.102.5.245 here, and here, and here. By 76.178.243.228 here, By Tgarran here, then following the 3RR warning to Brendan,mattson, new accounts created and same deletions by User:Donhossen here, by User:Jdaybreak here. Exact same content deleted on acupuncture article by Meirish, caught by another editor here and here. This is not a complete list of their recent deletions, as their single purpose contribution histories show more such edits. Although “these” are new editor(s), they appear to have no interest in improving Wikipedia except to censor images of professional women that do not meet their own cultural standards for women. One of “them” suddenly appeared from out of the blue at the same time on a talk page and said something like, "I'm not a TCM or alt med advocate, I'm a student of allopathic medicine". I have never heard a med student describe themselves as “allopathic”. It is as dumb as a stoned kid randomly walking up to a cop and saying, "look at me, occissiferr… er, officer, I'm not stoned". It might be best to wait to block them so that if they are MP and not SP, the entire group of associated IPs can be rounded up at once. Next, I anticipate them arguing “consensus” citing their own numbers.

It is wrong for WP to cave in when women are told what to wear by men arguing that if a woman is near a bare chested man her appearance is described in edit summaries as "seductive", a medicine bottle is interpreted to "look like a bottle of wine", the room "looks like a hotel room", and the man complains they should "wear a white lab coat". (1) If a man was treating a man, the objection would not have been made; (2) if the woman was treating another woman the objection and interpretation would never have been made; (3) if the objecting males were did not find the woman attractive, e.g., if she was 80 years old in or in poor physical shape, but in exactly the same photo, the objection would never have been made. When I first saw the image in question, my thought was, "that is exactly what all of the acupuncture/moxibustion sessions I have seen look like in new age norhtern california, candle, headboard, and all."

The group appears to be INTENTIONALLY WP:MP, since if they did not know they were doing anything wrong, or know about 3RR, then why does a new account keep getting created, instead of the same editor making the same deletions? Next I predict they are going to argue “consensus” because there are so many single-edit accounts. PPdd (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Block or topic ban
 * I tried to help this new SP/MP editor (group) here, here, and here.
 * Because it is a new editor, I would just write this off as needing a warning, not a more serious sanction. But the editor appears to have a purpose at WP being not to improve it, but only to be POV. This still does not merit a block or ban. But the editor appears to be deliberately trying to come in and immediately work the system to disimprove WP by creating the appearance of “consensus” using MP, then outright lying about doing so.
 * First he admitted to being MP – "A number of concerned professionals have been attempting to remove some offensive material from the Traditional Chinese Medicine page.".
 * Then he lied about it –  “other editors (who I am not associated with)”, not knowing he could be caught via IP. He could not know about the other completely brand new editors (at the same time he is) all working on and only on exactly the same edits, as to their being “professionals”, if he “is not associated” with them.
 * He is still shamelessly maintaining the lie, even in the face of an SP investigation, by arguing regarding it that he is "not associated with" the SP/MP editors he already implicilty admitted to knowing by knowing they were "concerned professionals" like himself, when they in no way indicated their professions.
 * He also deliberately violated 3RR warnings under his own username, then again under a new anonymous name. PPdd (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note user page creation date for User:Calus is 3-10-11, after SP/MP discovered. PPdd (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: if you go to my user page you will see that at 20:08, 10 February 2008 Calus ←Created page with 'Hello I'm hoping to contrib a lot to pages regarding Traditional Chinese Medicine in the future and not, 3-10-11 as you claim. Calus (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a correction. PPdd, your last comment about User:Colin is inaccurate. They've been here a long time: "autoconfirmed, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 9194 edits since: 2005-08-12" You meant to mention User:Calus, and have correctly linked to them. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. PPdd (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment "New" and "naive" editor User:Brendon.mattson has a name surprisingly similar to five year old editor User:Bmattson who Brendon,matson "does not know personally" and added false ADVERTs to the false article Bmattson created. PPdd (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually when asked about account bmattson I informed you that I created it but it has not been active for at least two years. I have made no other edits or even logged on until a couple days ago. I did not even know what a sockpuppet was when I registered a new account in an attempt to avoid using personally identifiable username.Brendan.mattson (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Brendan has made replies here and here. PPdd (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Brendan, others and I have asked multiple times on your talk page, what is the web address of the discussion forum you referred to? A reply would demonstrate you understand WP:GF. PPdd (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On facebook many of my former classmates have complained about the WP site. Someone mentioned the bad photo. It seemed to me (a novice) a pretty simple way to improve the page would be to remove it. Also showing my naivete I used the word "group" to attempt to give some weight to my argument. While I have admitted creating ONE separate account to preserve my anonymity, I outrightly reject the accusation that I am "lying" about any other collusion. I am not. I am one guy that thinks the TCM site is ridiculous.Brendan.mattson (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good enough explanation for me. PPdd (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. This seems to be a matter of newbie mistakes. We just need to clear up any socking accounts here, and then with you editing under your new username, you can start over again and be more careful. Whenever what seems to be sockpuppet activity is noticed, many editors come out shooting, so the reception can be very rough, and rightly so because socks do lots of damage here and cause an awful lot of disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - . PPdd (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Massive new edit warring and disruptive editing by this WP:SPA tag-team "group". Just look at the massive disruption at Wikipedia talk:Traditional Chinese Medicine. A topic ban might be in order here. PPdd (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not a part of a tag-team "group". I just happen to disagree with the way PPdd writes and I happen to agree with the common sense approach of most of the other editors of the traditional chinese medicine page, which I am already blocked from editing. PPdd doesn't take kindly to being disagreed with and often makes threats and personal inquiries. Please ASG that other editors are just trying to improve the page. THis simple fact that there is more interest in this page now does not by itself indicate SP/MP, nor does the appearance of agreement between separate editors.Herbxue (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (1) If you are topic banned, then why are you still being disruptive on that page?
 * (2) Why did your SP/MP delete the 3RR notice on “his” talk page immediately after your encouragement and immediately upon asserting the would seek mediation, and then continue to edit war, , , , ,
 * (3) Why did your SP/MP delete the disruptive editing notice on his talk page immediately after your encouragement and immediately upon asserting the would seek mediation, and continue being disruptive?
 * (4) Why did you encourage your SP/MP to claim he did not know who you are? PPdd (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My comments on TCM talk are informative and helpful to the discussion. I was told by other editors I was welcome to contribute on the talk page. Please do not attempt to blame me for other people's actions, even if I defend them. I did not "encourage" anyone, I informed YOU that anyone has a right to edit in good faith, and that there are probably many people who share a dedication to common sense and helping the article to present the subject faithfully. You are insulting in continuing to unjustifiably call people SP/MP just because they agree with each other about basic common sense. I do not have any affiliation with those other editors. It is paranoid and slanderous to continue using the SP/MP label without good reason.Herbxue (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you first said you did not know who these new SPEs who all came in at the same were, then when questioned, you changed this to being that you said you did know who they were as members of a discussion forum, and when I asked for the link to the forum you said you did not want me in particular to know the link, then when more editors asked for the link, you changed "discussion forum" to your own facebook page, which contradicts your initial claims to not know anything about who they are. PPdd (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I never said I knew who anyone on WP was. I don't know who any of the other editors are because nobody on wikipedia uses their real name! I wouldn't know I knew them even if I did know them! You probably can tell we are different people by ip addresses or time of edits or something. I know lots of people who think this page is complete garbage right now, but I don't know if they are attempting to edit. I am. That is all. I am not an SP or an MP and nobody is my SP or MP. More than one person in the world disagrees with you. Deal with it.Herbxue (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm accused of having created my user page recently, but in fact it was in 2008. Calus (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I, for one, would like an apology. Anyone who attempts to edit the TCM page with any competence is being charged by PPdd as sock or meat. There may be a growing awareness within the community of TCM practitioners about the sorry state of the article, but that does not necessitate any sort of collusion.  It should not come as a surprise that competent people object to the same areas of the article, and start with the most outrageous assertions.   I had no previous knowledge of this investigation or any disruptive editing. In fact, I withdrew my objection to the order of herbs listed after PPdd made me aware that it had been discussed.  I was only added to this investigation after I charged PPdd with not operating in good faith.  My edits stand for themselves, and have been made to better the article as a whole by maintaining a neutral point of view that is an accurate assessment of TCM.  I created this account in january of 2008 expressly to add to TCM content, as my user page shows.  My only regrets is that I waited till now to actually work on it.  Unfortunately I was busy attaining a Masters of Science on the subject.  PPdd has since shown me that competence and knowledge of the subject matter is not a prerequisite for writing about it. Calus (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: it was this Blog post by a friend that made me aware of the sorry state of affairs at WP: http://augustpoint.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/wikipedia-proves-acupuncture-is-mere-smoke-and-mirrors/
 * I guess at the end he does call for someone to rewrite the acupuncture section, but I have not touched that section. Also, to my knowledge he is not editing on WP.   If being concerned for how my profession is portrayed on Wiki makes me a meat puppet, then I am guilty.  However, as I stated earlier and demonstrated by my user page, It was my intention in 2008 to contribute to this page, and I have not been recruited by anyone recently. Morever, excluding professionals from adding to articles about their profession seems counter-intuitive to me. Again, I had no previous knowledge of disruptive editing, and have removed objections when made aware of them. (vis a vis ordering of medicinals)  No one I know has asked me to contribute or help them gain a consensus here.  It is my intention to add to WP on many subject matters, but for now I feel this section is in the most desperate need of competent editors. I'll admit that PPdd's manic editing and automatic reverts of any change I made, along with accusations of vandalism really got me frustrated, and things escalated rather quickly.  Now that neutral rational individuals have stepped in, I have cooled off.   I assume PPdd was operating in good faith, and perhaps frustrated by previous disruptive editors of which I had no knowledge. But his  actions and edits certainly made me angry.  I am not alone in feeling frustration due to his editing style, (i can provide links on this if you wish) and for that I apologize. However, I think you will agree that there is no evidence of me being a Meat puppet. Calus (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I got no idea why I'm being accused of being a sockpuppet, and although I know I shouldn't take this seriously I kind of do. I've been working on the tcm article for much longer than PPdd already. Does this sockpuppet list include everyone who doesn't agree with PPdd's way of editing or just people he doesn't like in particular? Mallexikon (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I added your name because others suddenly created WP:SPA accounts and edit warred using reasons similar to yours. There were apparently 5 socks caught or admitted to, and I have no way of telling who is who beyond that. Others may, so I put all involved in similar edits at the same time, during edit wars, above so someone could check. I forgot to notify you and explain what I just did, and I apologize for that. PPdd (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Apology accepted. Sorry, I know one shouldn't take these things personally. Mallexikon (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Herbxue and Calus claimed they and all their socks came to WP as a reaction to a dicsussoin forum, which they revealed to be this discussion forum. The post has this date "Posted on February 8, 2011 by AugustPoint”, but their contribs show dates BEFORE that post, beginning March 5 for Herbxue, and March 7 for Calus - [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Herbxue], and . I asked them to explain. PPdd (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop saying "they" PPdd. I did not read the blog Calus refers to. I've been on this merry-go-round with you since before Calus jumped into the discussion. I did not make any claims about this so-called "group" you keep yammering on about. I have only added to the talk page since you attacked me so fervently for trying to remove the inappropriate snake oil and "moxing" photos you stubbornly defended. Stop misrepresenting the facts. Herbxue (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Per these two edits, I've blocked Donhossen and Jdaybreak, and the autoblock has kicked in for at least one of the IPs. It's gonna take a little longer to sort out the other accounts. In the meantime, I've semi protected the article for a week to help keep things quiet. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's just have a check to clear out any socks and call it a day, OK? T. Canens (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For starters, the following is :


 * The following are ✅:


 * All of the rest are all over the place in regards to IPs. This is going to have to be decided on behavioral evidence, sorry. Tiptoety  talk 19:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you are apologizing Tiptoety, you have just "discovered" what I have been saying all along: bmattson is old news. Jdaybreak was an attempt to achieve anonymity. The two usernames you confirmed are me before and after username change. The rest of the names on the list have nothing to do with me. They are individuals who deserve an apology from PPdd for repeatedly calling them socks and meats.Herbxue (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I suppose they all suddenly thought of it themselves, since they have nothing to do with you. I agree that if your associates hear about something at WP and come and try to fix it, that's OK. But to come and try to edit war is not. PPdd (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The group that was attracted to Wikipedia by this discussion seems to be a group of people with professional interest, which at times can look like a COI, but is not 'meatpuppetry'. Brendan/Herbxue's explanation above fits the history I see; and the editors in question are currently contributing politely and with attention to sources on the relevant talk pages. I think this could be closed without concern.   –SJ +  21:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Done per request. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  01:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)